Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy

Aklin, Michaël; Urpelainen, Johannes

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.006

Cited by 89 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Described by van der Linden et al () as the GBM, people's scientific beliefs are posited to be heavily influenced by their perception of what scientists believe. Indeed, a series of cross‐sectional survey research have observed that one's perception of scientists' beliefs affects personal beliefs on a variety of topics, including climate change (Ding et al, ; Hornsey et al, ; Lewandowsky, Gilles, & Vaughan, ; McCright et al, ), environmental policy (Aklin & Urpelainen, ), and vaccination (Dixon & Clarke, ). Thus, highlighting a scientific consensus could act as a form of norm‐debiasing, where decreasing the gap between perceived and actual scientific support can be used as leverage to influence scientific beliefs.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One possible solution involves emphasizing a scientific consensus. Indeed, a body of research has found that a person's perception of a scientific consensus is highly predictive of his or her personal beliefs for a variety of scientific topics (Aklin & Urpelainen, ; Ding, Maibach, Zhao, Roser‐Renouf, & Leiserowitz, ; Hornsey, Harris, Bain, & Fielding, ; McCright, Dunlap, & Xiao, ). Drawing on these findings, scholars have developed a “Gateway Belief Model” (GBM), which posits that consensus messages can improve scientific beliefs and policy support (van der Linden, Leiserowitz, Feinberg, & Maibach, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applying the Gateway Belief Model to Genetically Modified Food Perceptions: New Insights and Additional Questions

Dixon

2016

J Commun

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Gateway Belief Model (GBM) suggests that highlighting a scientific consensus is the key to improving beliefs about important scientific issues. However, questions have been raised on how one's perception of a scientific consensus affects his or her personal scientific beliefs. Reporting on 2 online experiments, findings suggest that consensus messages designed to impact beliefs on a controversial scientific issue—genetically modified (GM) foods—affect audience segments in different ways. People with low prior support for GM foods are less affected by a message emphasizing a scientific consensus about GM food safety. Including visual exemplars of a scientific consensus in these messages might make them more salient. However, questions remain on how best to apply the GBM to persuasive science communication.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the Gateway Belief Model to Genetically Modified Food Perceptions: New Insights and Additional Questions

Dixon

2016

J Commun

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perceptions of scientific disagreement are related to lower support for environmental policy (Aklin and Urpelainen 2014). Yet the vast majority of people, as many as nine out of ten, are not aware that more than 90 percent of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused global warming is occurring .…”

Section: Communicating the Scientific Consensus On Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide

Santos¹,

Feygina²

2017

Michigan Journal of Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is an increasingly politicized issue in the United States, with many members of the American public, especially those who identify as politically conservative, skeptical about this dangerous phenomenon. A host of social and psychological processes have been investigated in an attempt to understand skepticism and resistance to responding to the threat of climate change, including motivated reasoning, system justification theory, social dominance orientation, belief in a just world, the cultural cognition thesis, and solution aversion. In this article, we review recent research into these processes and their implications for understanding the political divide in responding to climate change. We also highlight efforts to test communications interventions aimed at ameliorating these processes underlying climate change skepticism, including framing and scientific consensus. This literature review may be informative for climate change focused communicators, policymakers, practitioners, and academics who directly or indirectly interact with the 6

show abstract

“…Experimentally, consensus messaging or providing information about the extent of scientific agreement can increase subsequently expressed acceptance of ACC (Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Vaughan, 2013;Maibach, Myers, & Leiserowitz, 2014;van der Linden, Leiserowitz, Feinberg, & Maibach, 2015;van der Linden, Leiserowitz, & Maibach, 2016). Some analyses of survey questions about consensus and climate report findings consistent with this gateway role (Ding, Maibach, Zhao, RoserRenouf, & Leiserowitz, 2011;McCright, Dunlap, & Xiao, 2013; also see Aklin & Urpelainen, 2014). Experimental and survey approaches have complementary strengths and limitations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate

Hamilton

2016

SAGE Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions about climate change elicit some of the widest political divisions of any items on recent U.S. surveys. Severe polarization affects even basic questions about the reality of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), or whether most scientists agree that humans are changing the Earth's climate. Statements about scientific consensus have been contentious among social scientists, with some arguing for consensus awareness as a "gateway cognition" that leads to greater public acceptance of ACC, but others characterizing consensus messaging (deliberate communication about the level of scientific agreement) as a counterproductive tactic that exacerbates polarization. A series of statewide surveys, with nationwide benchmarks, repeated questions about the reality of ACC and scientific consensus many times over 2010 to 2016. These data permit tests for change in beliefs and polarization. ACC and consensus beliefs have similar trends and individual background predictors. Both rose gradually by about 10 points over 2010 to 2016, showing no abrupt shifts that might correspond to events such as scientific reports, leadership statements, or weather. Growing awareness of the scientific consensus, whether from deliberate messaging or the cumulative impact of many studies and publicly engaged scientists, provides the most plausible explanation for this rise in both series. In state-level data, the gap between liberal and conservative views on the reality of ACC did not widen over this period, whereas the liberal-conservative gap regarding existence of a scientific consensus narrowed.

show abstract

Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy

Cited by 89 publications

References 19 publications

Applying the Gateway Belief Model to Genetically Modified Food Perceptions: New Insights and Additional Questions

Applying the Gateway Belief Model to Genetically Modified Food Perceptions: New Insights and Additional Questions

Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide

Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About